The Cambria freeman. [volume] (Ebensburg, Pa.) 1867-1938, 1887-12-09
Victory for Prohibition.

WAsHINGTON. Dec. 5.-The Supreme
Court OF the the United States to day
in deciding the three Prohibition csses
from Kansas, held that the State under
its police powers had the right TO sup
press the liquor traffic, and that il the
State proceedings no right or privilege
guaranteed TO the distilIers and liquor
dealers had been denied or abridged, al
so that the State had the right TO
suppress the traffic without paving dam
ages or compensation 10 liquor dealers.
THIS settles the question of ths validity
o. the Prohibition law in the Eflirma-
tive.
Justice Harlan delivered the opinion
OF the Court in the two so called Pro-
hIbitiOn cases of Joseph Mugier. plain
tiff in error, VS.. the State of Kansas,
and ii The case of the State Kansas vs
Herman ZiebCid and oIhe.s, affirming
the Judgement of the lower court in the
two Muglar cases, and reversing The
judgment in the ZIebold case.
The Court said that the case came up
under the laws of Kansas declaring the
maintenance OF a building for the man.
ufscture and sale OF intoxicsnts a mis-
demeanor. 1t was contended that this
law was unconstitutional because It
abridged the rights of citizens of prop
erty without due process OF law, the
/ building used as brewery being of lit
/ tie value for any other purpose.
Justice HARLAN said It had been held
repeatedly that the right Of State to
regulate the sale of liquor did not in
wade the constitutional rights of the
/ citizen. 1t was contended. however, he
. said. that no : ate Legislature had a
| right TO prohibit any psrson from manu-
} f2cLCTlBg liquor tor his own use or for
export, Tor Ihe reason that il WIS an i'll
( vasion of the personal liberty inherent
/ IN citizens.
/ 1t nus. be observed, however, he
said, that the right TO mEnufact ure
/ drink for ones own use is subject TO tha
restriction that it shall not iDjuriously
I affect the public.
The right to determine what was in
JurIOua had TO exist some u here, and the
/ right 10 determine what measures are
necessary for the preservation OF ths
/ public morals, health and safety had
/ therefore been invested in the States by
the constitutional right given them uu-
der the police power TO regulate their
/ owr internal concerns. While this
/ police power could not be abused and
must only be exercised for objects of
Real merit, this Court would certainly
not say that the liquor tTaffic was not
( one which the State could lawfully pro-
/ hIhit, because IL was well known that
abuse OF :ntOxicauts was productive of
/ paupsr.sm and crime
The next ground OF contention, the
. Justice said. was that as the brewerles
/ had been erected prior to The passage Of
. the Prohibition law, and IS they were of
, little use except Ior bleweTies, their
/ property was laksn without due process
I OF law IN violation of the Constitution.
I but All property under our form o. Gov
+ eminent, be held, is subject to the obli-
gailon that 1t shall not be used SO as To
luJurlousIy aifect the rights of the CON-
muuity, aud thereby become a nuisace.
/ The Safe OF Kansas had right 20 pro-
! Elbit the liquor traffic. Il did rot there
! 10y take away The property Of brewers.
l. simply abated a nuisance. The
property IS rot taken away from its
owners thew are only prohibited from
using it tOr. specific purpose which
the Legislature declared TO be Injurious
TO the cCm immunity.